Obama’s Extra-Constitutional Abdication

President Barack Obama’s sudden decision – after a 45-minute Friday walk on the White House grounds – to go to Congress for authorization to intervene in Syria is far more than a simple, predictable act of accountability avoidance. Regardless of whether he gets the support to which he and Secretary of State John Kerry apparently feel entitled (amid serious doubts over who has really deployed chemical weapons in that country), Obama’s move has potentially far-reaching negative consequences. Congress must do all it can to avoid them.

The first hint that there is more to this than Obama’s typical politically calculated reluctance to take responsibility for his actions came from long-time left-wing writer Walter Shapiro. Shapiro called Obama’s decision “the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek its backing to launch the Korean war.” Hardened leftists — who can be counted on to see America as the bad guy in every conflict which legitimately involves American interests, but who wish to shame us into military action when they are not — must be thrilled.

The second clue came during Chris Wallace’s Sunday morning interview of Kerry. The secretary of State and 2004 presidential candidate — who, by the way, has frequently boasted of his service in Vietnam and promoted fabricated stories of atrocities committed there by U.S. troops — was on a mission to declare Obama’s decision to go to Congress “courageous.”

As Kerry attempted an about-face from the sense of urgency he had passionately advocated for just days earlier, Wallace reminded him that the urgency certainly still exists for innocent Syrian civilians and refugees. He then indirectly and perhaps inadvertently made the key bipartisan constitutional point:

Ronald Reagan did not think he needed congressional approval to go after Qaddafi in Libya. Bill Clinton did not think he needed approval to go after Kosovo or to go after al-Qaeda. This president seems to think … he needs political cover.

There are quite a few other examples Wallace could have cited, such as Reagan’s 1983 decision to invade Grenada and George H.W. Bush’s 1989 decision to send troops into Panama to depose Manuel Noriega. In neither of these cases, nor in the ones Wallace cited above, did our nation’s president consider formal congressional authorization a requirement (in the case of Kosovo — according to Kerry — Clinton tried and failed, but went ahead anyway).

Why? Because the president is the nation’s commander-in-chief. Yet Obama apparently believes now — per Kerry’s words to Wallace — that showing “the best face of our democracy” and “a unity of purpose” is more important than timely action.

If he succeeds in getting the congressional authorization he claims he doesn’t need, that maneuver will set the precedent-setting expectation that a president must seek congressional blessing for all military actions. Obama, whether he means it or not, claims this will be quite a small one: he has been selling the idea of a few strategically targeted cruise missiles “striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal,” and that this will “probably last no more than two days.” (This is, of course, a reversal of the administration’s Congress-ignoring, law-defying position on Libya. But Libya occurred when Obama had to demonstrate interest in being an accountable commander-in-chief during a reelection campaign. He doesn’t have to worry about that anymore.)

Leftists hope that “should turn to Congress every time” becomes “must turn to Congress every time.” If that occurs, the U.S. will, by virtue of the delays and indecisiveness congressional authorization will inevitably involve, become a much less important force for worldside stability and security. With this precedent set, civilization’s enemies know that they have another three-and-one-half years during which any action of theirs — short of a large-scale direct attack on U.S. interests — will be met by delay, followed by … perhaps nothing. They also know that the next president will have to break that tradition, likely against the wishes of the media.

Let’s look at what the War Powers Resolution Act actually says with regard to its purpose and policy:

50 U.S.C. § 1541 – Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces INTO HOSTILITIES, OR INTO SITUATIONS WHERE IMMINENT INVOLVEMENT IN HOSTILITIES IS CLEARLY INDICATED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; LIMITATION

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) A NATIONAL EMERGENCY CREATED BY ATTACK UPON THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS, OR ITS ARMED FORCES.

Has Syria declared war on the United States?

No, but AQ has and it is part of the ‘rebels’ of whom we are asked to arm and assist.

Is there any specific statutory authorisation for airstrikes on Syria?

Not yet.

Has a national emergency been created by an attack from Syria upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?

Nope.

Declaring War Is One Power That The President Absolutely Does Not Have

The Muslim Middle East will continue to hate all non-Muslims and work against them at every turn. We have zero to gain and lots to lose. The faster Al Qaeda wins, the faster we'll see those nerve gas bombs deployed in the United States. Helping Al Qaeda is madness and treasonous.

"If he succeeds in getting the congressional authorization he claims he doesn’t need, that maneuver will set the precedent-setting expectation that a president must seek congressional blessing for all military actions."

With all due respect, Tom, no it won't.

What it will do, however, is very possibly set the expectation that future presidents who wish to engage in foreign adventurism to cover their own rear ends politically because of their own stupid and naive rhetoric, or to distract attention from numerous serious scandals and demonstrations of complete incompetence, or to further his or her own other demagogic ends, will have to get Congressional approval to do so.

All this wringing of hands over presidential credibility. What about the integrity of our constitutional syste? What about our credentials in the word as a nation governed by law, not men? What about our reputation as a nation governed of, by and for the people? All those matter more than any presidents' personal or presidential credibility. His credibility depends more on all the others listed above.

I believe this article assumes there are no circumstances in which the President would be required to seek a declaration of war. It would make a nullity of the congressional war declaring power. Well, that can't be automatically presumed if we take it to be that the omission of such a premise denies it. Yet it is clearly implied. If that is a premise of the article, I would say no if for no other reason that to preserve the congressional power.

"If he succeeds in getting the congressional authorization he claims he doesn’t need, that maneuver will set the precedent-setting expectation that a president must seek congressional blessing for all military actions."

And?

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:"The Congress shall have Power To … declare War … ."

War Powers Resolution:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to(1) a declaration of war,(2) specific statutory authorization, or(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."-50 U.S.C. §1541(c)

So basically, you are listing all the times Presidents have violated the Constitution and have broken US Law. If I break the law, will you write an article rationalizing and condoning my behavior for me? Hate to set a precedent…

in time of crisis we have an unpatriotic irresponsible person in the oval office, who thinks that he is a politician with skills because he grew up in Indonesia.

But then this person tells us he drew a line in the sand, ignores his line in the sand and says that it is not his credibility on the line, but the country's/

well the country says no, and since he has no crediblity on the line, time for B.O. to step aside and let the people deal with the problems he creates, looks to avoid the consequence but then look to claim the credit.

Funny how he claims the credit for Bin Laden when it is reported he left the room to go play spades with Reggie, and during Benghazi couldn't even be found while he prepared to go to a fund raiser as troops were ordered to stand down and US citizens murdered.

WRONG! This Syrian thing is NOT something the president can or should be deciding by executive action. US security is not threatened by what has happened so far. If the president's request is appropriate congress will approve his action.

The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack, with virtually no reaction from the UN or the Treaty Organizations at the Hague, is a perfect example how meaningless these organizations truly are, and how little they provide to the safety of the people of the World.

Yet, these same "One World Government" Progressives insist that they must give their permission before a sovereign nation can protect it people and its interests. Interestingly, these same One Worlders were quick to indict President Bush and Former Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld, for war crimes, because he acted on compelling evidence that Saddam not only used chemical weapons to kill Kruds in Northern, and began Ethnic Cleansing of the Swamp Arabs of Iraq, but that he also stalled anti-proliferation inspectors trying to inspect for WMD's in his country. Interestingly, Saddam moved his WMD's, with Russian Spenaz cooperation into Lebanon's Syrian controlled Bekaa Valley. Perhaps the Syrian government used these WMD's to gas it's people.

It is about time that the US gets out of the UN, tell NATO it is time for them to arm themselves to protect against a reemerging Russia, and to tell the WTO that if it can't get China to live up to its trade obligation that the US is bailing out and setting its trade policy to benefit its industry and working people.

Where were the UN or Hague sanctions when Russia genetically cleansed its Chechens, or when it invaded the independent state of Georgia? Where was the US.

The best thing the US can do to minimize the influence of the Mohammedan World in the US, is to open up the drilling of all US reserves, build the US-Canadian pipeline, build fifty new refineries and 100 micro clean-coal fired power plants. Of course the "Climate Terrorists" will go nuts, and even start terrorizing the the US oil and refining facilities. Of course, if they do, we could round them up, like the Jihadists and send to Gitmo for recuperation.

I don't want one man (and a highly ambitious and self-regarding man as is requisite to achieve the presidency) deciding for the entire nation whether we all go to war. And that is a truth of war: when it commences it takes every last citizen along with it.We have representative government for the precise reason that the Founding Fathers sought to eliminate the dangers and abuses that are inevitable when one man has total control of a people. The nation and its government belong to all the citizens and as such the citizenry (through their legislature) should have the final voice in matters as deadly serious as the question of whether to send their sons and daughters to war.Inconvenience and inefficiency were engineered into the government for precisely the purpose of hobbling it in order to avoid precipitate and unwise (and politically ambitious) actions such as this.

The best of our Presidents took actions to protect the Nation and the Constitutions, without waiting for permission from the Congress. Had President Lincoln not suspended habeas corpus in the Lt. John Merryman case (see In Re Merryman) without the Congress, it may have been possible that the United States would have lost the Civil War within a few months of its start.

Interestingly, the same Chief US Supreme Court Justice that wrote Dred Scott decision and sworn Lincoln in as President, also, acting as a District Court Justice for Maryland, wrote the decision In Re Merryman requiring the Commanding General of Fort McHenry to deliver Lt. Merryman to his court.

This case, however, was a perfect example of a "Clear and Present Danger" to the Constitution and the the Government of the United States, as the Maryland Militia Officer Lt. Merryman was activating try to disrupt rail transport through Maryland of Pennsylvania militia troop heading to Washington, DC to defend against an Army of Northern Virginia siege and capture of Washington, DC.

and don't forget he is doing this when saying it isn't even his credibility on the line.

so if you have nothing at stake and the people say no, bow out, and it would be nice if while bowing out you didn't let the doors at the white house hit you in your rear as you leave, permanently, in handcuffs, and heading to jail, which would be nice start

I doubt any future President is going to feel constrained in any way by any precedents set by Obama. Nor is any future President going to discredit the Office of the President as the worst President in American history Obama has, in fact the next President is going to be rebuilding authority and prestige for the simple fact that there is no way to go but up.

"the U.S. will, by virtue of the delays and indecisiveness congressional authorization will inevitably involve, become a much less important force for worldside [sic] stability and security."Like Egypt? Or Libya? Or Iran (don't forget; American action in Iran helped lead to the current theocracy)?Listen - "If we do not let a president we don't like initiate military action we don't want against a target that may be innocent of the raison d'être invoked to do it someday a president we LIKE won't be able to do the same thing!"Is not a sound argument